https://www.rollingstone....g-1149800/

Paul Simon has sold his publishing rights to Sony Music Publishing, the company announced Wednesday — marking the latest blockbuster catalog deal in the booming music-rights acquisition space.

Does that include The Sound of Silence?

domainator2010 said:

Does that include The Sound of Silence?

Did he previously own the publishing for it?

I read that music catalogue values are sky-rocketing.

I think there are tax incentives as well.

Pathetic sell out./

2freaky4church1 said:

Pathetic sell out./

Yeah, musicians making money from their music. Imagine that.

Do people realize that the aritists doing this ALL basically have retired from touring and some from even releasing music, SO yes they have money but also many are selling the catalogs for big $$$ because streaming is where it is going now, and that is not a paycheck for them, and even if they wanted to tour most of the artists are older and with COVID now, you pretty much have seen the end of a lot of aritsts touring especially extensive giant tours, dont be surprised to see more artists go this route.

lastdecember said:

Do people realize that the aritists doing this ALL basically have retired from touring and some from even releasing music, SO yes they have money but also many are selling the catalogs for big $$$ because streaming is where it is going now, and that is not a paycheck for them, and even if they wanted to tour most of the artists are older and with COVID now, you pretty much have seen the end of a lot of aritsts touring especially extensive giant tours, dont be surprised to see more artists go this route.

I'm going to disagree with some of this. The reasons for selling are their own and we will never really know why these guys are doing this. I mean, for all we know, some could be in so much debt, that selling off their catalogue is the only thing that is going to get them out of debt. But we don't know anything really.

I doubt Covid is a reason - I just dont see a real correlation because the world will go back to a great deal of normalcy one day and concerts and tours will certainly resume. Retirement - yes ok maybe. It's plausible but I'm sure we will hear more from them in the future.

I see it in terms of a lack of leaving a legacy. These people have children and to not leave these massive legacies to your children it must mean something else is at play. Nothing sinister, just something else is driving these decisions. I mean, if I had a publishing catalogue worths hundres of millions, I think I would leave it to my kids or family when I kick off. There has to be a lot of consideration, thought and delibaration on making a decision like this.

Milty2 said:

jjhunsecker said:

Milty2 said:

I'm going to disagree with some of this. The reasons for selling are their own and we will never really know why these guys are doing this. I mean, for all we know, some could be in so much debt, that selling off their catalogue is the only thing that is going to get them out of debt. But we don't know anything really.

I doubt Covid is a reason - I just dont see a real correlation because the world will go back to a great deal of normalcy one day and concerts and tours will certainly resume. Retirement - yes ok maybe. It's plausible but I'm sure we will hear more from them in the future.

I see it in terms of a lack of leaving a legacy. These people have children and to not leave these massive legacies to your children it must mean something else is at play. Nothing sinister, just something else is driving these decisions. I mean, if I had a publishing catalogue worths hundres of millions, I think I would leave it to my kids or family when I kick off. There has to be a lot of consideration, thought and delibaration on making a decision like this.

I actually worked in the music industry for several years, dealing with songwriting and publishing royalties. These royalties are generally paid out quarterly. Notice that many of the artists: songwriters who are selling their rights are in their 70s or even 80s. It makes sense for them to grab a huge payout now, instead of getting in dribs and drabs throughout each year. Mortality is looking them in the face, and they now have a bankroll that they can leave to their family or fund whatever operations they want

Fair enough. I do see it diferently as in having that asset around as your legacy for your children and then your grandchildren. The music business has historically been very transactional and so I guess it all makes sense.

Milty2 said:

lastdecember said:

Do people realize that the aritists doing this ALL basically have retired from touring and some from even releasing music, SO yes they have money but also many are selling the catalogs for big $$$ because streaming is where it is going now, and that is not a paycheck for them, and even if they wanted to tour most of the artists are older and with COVID now, you pretty much have seen the end of a lot of aritsts touring especially extensive giant tours, dont be surprised to see more artists go this route.

I'm going to disagree with some of this. The reasons for selling are their own and we will never really know why these guys are doing this. I mean, for all we know, some could be in so much debt, that selling off their catalogue is the only thing that is going to get them out of debt. But we don't know anything really.

I doubt Covid is a reason - I just dont see a real correlation because the world will go back to a great deal of normalcy one day and concerts and tours will certainly resume. Retirement - yes ok maybe. It's plausible but I'm sure we will hear more from them in the future.

I see it in terms of a lack of leaving a legacy. These people have children and to not leave these massive legacies to your children it must mean something else is at play. Nothing sinister, just something else is driving these decisions. I mean, if I had a publishing catalogue worths hundres of millions, I think I would leave it to my kids or family when I kick off. There has to be a lot of consideration, thought and delibaration on making a decision like this.

covid is not a direct reason for those who already retired, like Paul Simon and others, I don't think he's in debt, or has had money issues at all, and even if he puts out new music, if he's lucky he will 10-20 thousand if even that, which is reality now. I do agree it's a legacy because who knows what the times will bring for these songs, and I think they want the legacy to be paid for now, which is smart. I do think though tours are going to be effected for bigger artists that still do it, almost all that play larger arenas or spaces overseas have cancelled anything in 2021 and move it to spring and summer 2022 and some 2023 like Elton John. I think a lot of artists will reconsider long tours that's going to be a reality, I don't see Bon Jovi doing all these countries and U2 and the others going out for a year on dates, because you still have lockdowns in Europe and many territories have some issues with their governments I don't think it's going to be a vaccine and let's play 200 shows again.

lastdecember said:

Milty2 said:

I'm going to disagree with some of this. The reasons for selling are their own and we will never really know why these guys are doing this. I mean, for all we know, some could be in so much debt, that selling off their catalogue is the only thing that is going to get them out of debt. But we don't know anything really.

I doubt Covid is a reason - I just dont see a real correlation because the world will go back to a great deal of normalcy one day and concerts and tours will certainly resume. Retirement - yes ok maybe. It's plausible but I'm sure we will hear more from them in the future.

I see it in terms of a lack of leaving a legacy. These people have children and to not leave these massive legacies to your children it must mean something else is at play. Nothing sinister, just something else is driving these decisions. I mean, if I had a publishing catalogue worths hundres of millions, I think I would leave it to my kids or family when I kick off. There has to be a lot of consideration, thought and delibaration on making a decision like this.

covid is not a direct reason for those who already retired, like Paul Simon and others, I don't think he's in debt, or has had money issues at all, and even if he puts out new music, if he's lucky he will 10-20 thousand if even that, which is reality now. I do agree it's a legacy because who knows what the times will bring for these songs, and I think they want the legacy to be paid for now, which is smart. I do think though tours are going to be effected for bigger artists that still do it, almost all that play larger arenas or spaces overseas have cancelled anything in 2021 and move it to spring and summer 2022 and some 2023 like Elton John. I think a lot of artists will reconsider long tours that's going to be a reality, I don't see Bon Jovi doing all these countries and U2 and the others going out for a year on dates, because you still have lockdowns in Europe and many territories have some issues with their governments I don't think it's going to be a vaccine and let's play 200 shows again.

I agree with that. I think it'll be a slow process back to where we once were but I do believe we will be back to it. As to when, I have no idea. But just asking, has Paul Simon actually retired from music?

Milty2 said:

lastdecember said:

covid is not a direct reason for those who already retired, like Paul Simon and others, I don't think he's in debt, or has had money issues at all, and even if he puts out new music, if he's lucky he will 10-20 thousand if even that, which is reality now. I do agree it's a legacy because who knows what the times will bring for these songs, and I think they want the legacy to be paid for now, which is smart. I do think though tours are going to be effected for bigger artists that still do it, almost all that play larger arenas or spaces overseas have cancelled anything in 2021 and move it to spring and summer 2022 and some 2023 like Elton John. I think a lot of artists will reconsider long tours that's going to be a reality, I don't see Bon Jovi doing all these countries and U2 and the others going out for a year on dates, because you still have lockdowns in Europe and many territories have some issues with their governments I don't think it's going to be a vaccine and let's play 200 shows again.

I agree with that. I think it'll be a slow process back to where we once were but I do believe we will be back to it. As to when, I have no idea. But just asking, has Paul Simon actually retired from music?

from music not that I know of, it was said to be a retirement from touring which I think people take as a no more live concerts, but he did those last dates in 2018 and then in 2019 played a one off on a festival, but as he is now 79 going on 80 I don't think he will be doing any tours maybe a concert here and there. Musically he never stated he was done with it, but his albums have not really had a wide audience from loyal fans like say Springsteen still does, even if he has hit singles or not, Springsteen puts out a record and it usually debuts top of the charts, Paul however doesn't really have that base, his 2016 album debuted at number 3 but just two years later his next record peaked at 70 though many may argue it was songs he left off other albums and re did them now, but also he took major breaks between records so I think that's another reason for uneven sales .

lastdecember said:

but also he took major breaks between records so I think that's another reason for uneven sales

I think Paul's audience is primarily boomers and they're getting old and are less likely to buy new records or they're passing away. That's even if the audience even know the veterans put out new records. If current mainstream acts don't sell much physical product, then surely veterans won't. Paul Simon isn't like Elvis or The Beatles who are still marketed a lot, even though they haven't existed since the 1970s. Elvis also has a lot of movies that are still shown on TV. Nor is Paul like Journey or Eagles who get heavy oldies/classic rock airplay. A few years ago there was the Black Simon & Garfunkel skits on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show. That was some current pop culture recognition.

Milty2 said:

MickyDolenz said:

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

but also he took major breaks between records so I think that's another reason for uneven sales

I think Paul's audience is primarily boomers and they're getting old and are less likely to buy new records or they're passing away. That's even if the audience even know the veterans put out new records. If current mainstream acts don't sell much physical product, then surely veterans won't. Paul Simon isn't like Elvis or The Beatles who are still marketed a lot, even though they haven't existed since the 1970s. Elvis also has a lot of movies that are still shown on TV. Nor is Paul like Journey or Eagles who get heavy oldies/classic rock airplay. A few years ago there was the Black Simon & Garfunkel skits on Jimmy Fallon's Tonight Show. That was some current pop culture recognition.

He has a different type following then say a Paul McCartney or a Springsteen who still will chart albums high if not a number one first week, and definitely top the sales chart. But Paul has had the initial boom after Simon and Garfunkel broke up, the 80's though were a boom with Graceland it was Paul going in many different directions, and then in the 90's attempting broadway with Capeman which I saw and was good as was the soundtrack, the show had Marc Anthony and Ruben Blades but got no support and the production lost 11million dollars and Paul got a bad wrap for it, and wanting to do it all etc... As for getting play as radio personality Eddie Trunk says all the time, " I don't care how good the new record is by an older artist, they will never get it played" and rock radio is a disaster they play the same fifty classics that no one knows any history. The Beatles are in a different league and regardless of Elvis and how he was revered he did not have the sales of the Beatles it was a different era for Elvis a lot of singles not many epic albums like today, where almost no one does an album anymore. Simon and Garfunkel were big quick almost like the Monkees were, The Beatles could release an undiscovered album next week and it would outsell today's artists combined.

Yes, Paul Simon has said that he has retired from touring, though he will likely play the odd show here and there (this was before COVID, of course). He hasn't ruled out releasing new music.

This trend in publishing sell offs comes down to a few factors, I think.

These artists are getting on in years. In the streaming world, it would take 10+ years for them to rack up enough streams to earn even a fraction of the amounts they're selling their catalogue rights for. If you're looking at $300m-$400m.... someone like Dylan or Simon or Neil Young knows they quite possibly won't be around a decade from now, so why not cash in the chips and enjoy the money while they're still here, whether that's personally enjoying it, or ensuring that it's properly allocated to family, heirs, etc...

Also, for someone like Dylan, it makes sense that he would rather leave his family/kids with a giant stack of money when he dies, than with a complex web of publication deals and rights, which would have to be expertly navigated by someone in the know. This way it's a clean break.

On the other side, for the purchasers of these rights, it just shows how confident they are that streaming is not only here to stay, but will grow in the next 10-20 years.. they're betting that over that time, through streaming, they will not only make back that 300 or 400 mil, but will make profit on it.

EDITED TO ADD: I should say that they're not just betting on streaming, having the publishing rights also means they can generate revenue from use in films, commercials, etc. But either way, they're confident that through all of this, they can turn a profit on the massive investment in a few years.

Note also, that none of these guys and gals, as far as I'm aware, has sold the full rights (aka the masters) to the recordings of their work that they've created. Certainly in Dylan's case, he and Columbia/Sony retain full rights to the his recordings of his work, only the publishing rights have been sold... so it's really the best of both worlds for them. His heirs will not only inherit a huge stack of money when he dies, they will also continue to earn money from the master recordings of the works.

It's actually a very smart move on the part of these artists, seeing as artists are now routinely being screwed financially by the streamers, who pay them an absolute pittance.

Ironically, and unfortunately, you have to already be a legend to benefit from this, by having the body of work that's worth that money.

[Edited 4/5/21 7:28am]

No, helping corporations own the souls of artists.

Jello Biafra is the smart one. He is 100 percent independent.

2freaky4church1 said:

No, helping corporations own the souls of artists.

This is nonsense I'm afraid. And a very old-fashioned view of the 'freedom of the artist'.

If you think for one second that Dylan isn't releasing exactly whatever the hell he likes, then I don't know what to tell you.

There's this idealistic myth that art must always be free of commerce, and it just has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Even Bach would take a gig, be commissioned to write a piece of music for the king's birthday, or whatever... he did his job, he got paid... then the original manuscript the music had been composed on would be reused to write something else.

This whole idea that the starving artist is the only true artist is just ridiculous, sorry.

The music industry has always been based on an uneasy relationship between art and money. Many times, the commerce has sucked the life out of an artist's creative integrity, no denying that, but at the same time, there's many a time that artists have benefited from the focus and discipline of having a label behind them to sometimes tell them 'no'.... Terence Trent D'Arby/Sananda Maitreya comes immediately to mind.... as, of course, does our man Prince.

And, lastly, why shouldn't an artist like Dylan or Paul Simon or Stevie Nicks benefit financially from their lifetime's worth of hard work? Clearly, the work they have done has a monetary value, a great value, but they should deny their families and heirs of millions of dollars (leaving it, basically, for some corporate suit to spend after the die), in the name of 'artistic integrity'?

Is that seriously what you think?

[Edited 4/5/21 7:37am]

You forget about the old black blues artists who died in poverty.

2freaky4church1 said:

2freaky4church1 said:

You forget about the old black blues artists who died in poverty.

Ah, so because some black blues musicians were (undeniably) cheated out of millions by some records companies in the past, Paul Simon should not make money by selling the publishing rights to his back catalogue.

Gotcha. Makes perfect sense.